Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-08-13

pOigamy and kindred onenSeS In force within
this District? think not. See. $3.50 Of the Re-
vised statutes Of the United states, TO which the
two amendments sought TO be applied to the Dis
trict appertain is found In chapter g. OF 'Crimes
and is entitled, Grimes arising within the mari
time and territorial jurisdiction of the United
states" That section defines the crime Of bigamy
and preseribss the punishment, which Is by fine
OF not more than $500, and by Imprisonment for a
term Of not more IMAM i've years Although this
act was approved July i, 1862, it was re-enacted
as part of the Revised Statutes, and may for the
purposes OF this inquiry be deemed 10 bear date
the LIST day OF December, 1873, the date fixed In
both the revision OF the General Revised
the District OF Columbia" Tor the same 10 take
effect. Now II IL should appear that said Sec.
5;3o:, of the Revised Statutes was never in force
where that any amendment OF that section could
by judicial Interpretation merely, be held TO ap-
ply here.
sufficient reason for the belief that this sec
tion 1857 was never In force in the District Is
this, that we nnd law In the Revised statues
and re-enacted at the same time with the General
Revised Statues, which nxes the punishment for
the crime OF bigamy within the District, anu that
punishment is quite different from the one pre-
scribed in section 1852. AS these two acts were
under consideration by Congress at the same time,
IL reasonably certain that the one was apprOpri
ate TO such OffenSe committed "with1n the mari
time anu territorial jurisdiction OF the United
States while the other, the District statute Sec
I1on Ii55 OF the "Revised Statutes relating the
District of Coiumbia,'1 Is appropriate to such Of
Tense committed within the District. Nor, pre-
might be used INTERCHANGEABLE at the pleasure OF
the prosecuting officer. How, then, can any mere
amendment OF the ''crimes" act, unless by con-
tend to the District?
Section S3 OF the Revised Statutes relating to
the District OF Columbia, reads follows:
section 90. The Constitution and all laws OF the
United states, which are not locally tnappcable,
shall have the same force and effect within the
District as elsewhere within the United states. :"
IL should not be forgotten that this section was
passed By the same body (CongreSSl. and was un-
der consideration at the same time as section
53o2 OF the General statutes, 10 which the amend
ments now sought 10 be applied Within the Dis
trlct belong.
two amendments would both be printed as part Of
chapter 3, entitled '.Crimes Arising Within the
Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction OF the United
States In neither OF the amendments sought TO
be applied TO the District of Columbia Is the Dis
tricJ mentioned. nor Is there word 10 warrant
the presumption that this District entered into
the minds or the Lawmakers when either the
original act or the amendments were under con-
sideration. But the contention is that they are
locally fnappiicabe, and therefore they apply.
IL cLiOn 93 Of The District Statutes read, 'That
all laws OF the United states which are not locally
within the District as anywhere else within the
boundaries OF the United States" there would
seem 10 be more ground for the new and dangerous
doctrine contended for by the pOlygamy SmasherS.
The words employed in section 93 OF the District
Statutes We're used to express the sense or Con-
gress that the general statutes Of the United
States not locally tnapplicabie To the District
should be held TO apply here, but not local stat
ute and least OF all That certain picked sections
In the law passed 20 suppress the crime OF polyg-
amy In titan should be imported into our District
law, pro hGc riee, and merely because somebody
has discovered that they happen 70 Ut particular
case. IL would, in my opinion, be but going one
step more towards The ridiculous to attempt TO
employ section OF the Z. s. Army Regulations In
our courts upon the ground that they apply to
places within the exclusive Jurisdiction" OF the
United States to wit, TO the forts and public reser-
vationS- j am aware that the author OF the law
10 prohibit poly gamy has been recently reported
in a newspaper as expressing the 0plnion that
that law applied 10 the District OF Columbia. But
II he ever said that, IL must have required the
strength OF both his hands laid across his stomach
TO suppress the inclination laugh az the fresh.
ness OF his interviewer. Csc
WASHINGTON, August 9, 1887.